[archiepeach]

Good intentions or not, we must remember that history has proven time and time again, when any entity has far too much unchecked power, it is inevitably exploited by bad actors. A user base of two billion users without any real accountability is a scary thing. The only people policing Facebook are Facebook. We would never agree to a having a single dictator who answers to no one, why should Facebook be treated any differently?

[thinkloop]

Because unlike a dictator Facebook has zero real power over your life? It's a site of puppies and horoscopes, you think we should be dealing with them like we do Kim Jong Un?

How have we moved so far on the personal responsibility scale. Why aren't people partly responsible for not making better use of their time? Facebook is an "evil echo chamber", "wasting people's lives", "catering to business", etc - ALL THEY DO IS HOST YOUR FRIENDS' PHOTOS. Can't we take partial responsibility at least for how often we _choose_ to log on? Are we that simple that our entire personalities can be fully pwned with some basic machine learning?

[lbotos]

> ALL THEY DO IS HOST YOUR FRIENDS' PHOTOS

This is like saying a Tesla car is just a machine that generates heat.

Facebook has built an algorithmically optimized list of content that they believe will drive you back to the site to consume more.

They also have insane amounts of usage data which they are testing for sentiment analysis [0] They've also run tests on content to provoke emotion as far back as 2014.[1]

It's clear that they have the power to influence emotions and impact people in real ways. Because you are strong willed does not mean that others cannot be easily swayed by dopamine release.

[0](http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/27/technology/facebook-ai-suici...) [1](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every...)

[thinkloop]

> This is like saying a Tesla car is just a machine that generates heat.

Not to that degree but I admit that I used a hyperbolic devise to try and pull back the implied necessity of Facebook.

> does not mean that others cannot be easily swayed by dopamine release

Facebook should be regulated as a narcotic :-P

Jokes aside, FB does have lots of ability to influence, and they shouldn't be able to operate with impunity, but that's a far cry from where we are now:

- Facebook is too fun (because AI!!) and my work is suffering!

- Facebook keeps giving me what I'm interested and engaged in!! (echo chamber)

[wutbrodo]

Seriously. I get the argument that the brain has flaws that can be manipulated to some degree, and I think it is seriously worth considering, but HN has really jumped the shark when it comes to these conversations. To hear this forum tell it, everybody is powerlessly cowering beneath the lash of their electronic devices, completely unable to make any decisions about their usage.

[moccachino]

The ugly truth is that while you may be very conscious of how you spend your time online and what you interact with, the majority of people simply is not, and many people are ill-equipped to even understand how they are being manipulated to scroll a bit more, play another game or vote for the wrong candidate.

[wutbrodo]

Sure, that's probably fair. But to be precise, what I'm complaining about is my perception that the tenor of some of these HN conversation is so hysterical that they don't even recognize the _possibility_ of having control over your usage. The idea that Facebook et al are _nothing_ more than a 21st century poison, and that they're impossible to use responsibly, is something I've seen far too often for far too long on this board.

I use drugs (caffeine, alcohol, weed, and a couple others), and do so responsibly, and think that they add some measure of richness to my life. I enjoy well-made desserts, and do so responsibly, mostly avoiding sugar and processed carbs in the rest of my diet, and I'm in great physical health. Both of these have a huge potential for abuse, but the idea that they're 100% terrible and the only possible way to handle them is complete abstinence is absurd.

I use Facebook, but I do so in moderation, I generally don't spend much/any time in the feed, and it adds a dimension of convenience of communication to my life which has helped _enrich_ many friendships instead of damaged them[1]. And yet out of the three examples I've given here, Facebook is the only one for which I frequently see top comments and entire threads with people claiming they can't believe that everyone hasn't figured out that any FB usage is toxic and the only solution is complete abstinence. I just don't get it.

[1] A friend of mine had a traumatic brain injury last year and has been recovering with family in a different city. Since he's not able to have the big bday party up here that he usually has, a couple of weekends from now, 10 of us are flying from three separate parts of the country to celebrate his birthday for a weekend. _All_ of the planning, from convincing his family, to figuring out lodgings, to figuring out the guest list, to figuring out transportation and scheduling for everyone, was done over Facebook Events and Messenger (and Google Sheets).

[hycaria]

The problem there being ? Apart from the (sofar unbeknownst to me) existence of a "wrong" candidate ?

[moccachino]

I'm not going to explain to you why it matters in which direction societies evolve. And yes, the 'wrong' candidate obviously can exist, for example the one that deceives the voter.

[kazinator]

Facebook affects you even if you've never had an account, which represents the "least often" point on the "choose when to log on" scale.

> ALL THEY DO IS HOST YOUR FRIENDS' PHOTOS

You might not have noticed that Facebook also hosts a lot of Javascript that non-facebook sites load for some aspect of their implementation.

[losteric]

Traditional media only broadcasts content to millions, and they are regulated. Why isn't Facebook regulated?

[thinkloop]

Facebook is regulated (everything is regulated to some degree either directly or indirectly). Is there a specific regulation you mean? Perhaps traditional media should be less regulated? I personally really like the way the internet is.

[losteric]

I'd like more regulations on securing / deleting consumer data, accountability for data leaks, public disclosure of political advertising, clear labeling of friend's content vs ads and organic trending content, and anti-monopoly regulations to promote innovative competition.

The public has benefitted from placing those regulations on traditional media, it should serve as an example for regulating massive tech corporations. If anything, I'm in favor of more advertising regulations on traditional media (eg banning deceptive advertising, especially in medicine).

[DashRattlesnake]

> I personally really like the way the internet is.

Giant monopolies that control most of it for most users?

[kthejoker2]

Who forced you to use a single site on the web? Monopolies of oil, phone lines, food ... Those are troubling.

What is Facebook a monopoly of? Attention? Digital family scrapbooks?

If they're such a monopoly why is it ridiculously easy to quit it with absolutely no consequences?

Why are you giving these companies powers they don't actually possess? Their only value to anyone is their Network effects. There are plenty of alternatives to Facebook and Twitter and Google and (thanks, Internet!) they're really easy to find and use.

[laaph]

> ALL THEY DO IS HOST YOUR FRIENDS' PHOTOS

If that's all they do, why do they just show me my friend's political rants and never the photos? I have to click on a specific person to see their entire timeline these days ("Most recent" only shows me a couple things, and then tells me to add more friends), and it's almost always their political rants and links, and rarely their photos.

I've started using Instagram, ironically also owned by facebook, because it's photos and not weird political rants.

[so33]

FB does far more than host photos. In addition to being a platform to disseminate any sort of media, from cat videos to news to political commentary (so much so that they developed Instant Articles), it serves as a platform for text/video chat, event coordination among friends and organizations, web pages for small businesses, forums (which is basically what a Group is), games, and countless other stuff I haven’t listed here.

Facebook really does want to be your homepage and their products currently released all point to an all encompassing strategy to get you to stay on Facebook in order to look at more ads. In light of their ambitious strategy that extends far beyond the scope of traditional media, it really is not something to laugh off.

[fizx]

> Are we that simple that our entire personalities can be fully pwned with some basic machine learning?

Unfortunately, yes.

[thirdsun]

I agree and feel similarly about the fake news discussion that's been going on since the election: Instead of looking for ways to hide it we should try to educate people, encourage critical thinking and work towards media consumption literacy and competence. If publications like Breitbart, /r/the_donald and others find a substantial following, maybe the receivers and not the messenger itself needs fixing.

Of course this isn't an overnight process, but one that has to start early, particularly during childhood, which is why the education system is central to those efforts.

[ace_of_spades]

If you want to hear the opposite side of the story, you should listen to an episode of the Dan Harris podcast with Tristan Harris [1]. Tristan is the founder of timewellspent.io which is an organization advocating for changes to the way we measure the success of applications.

The core point is that properties like FB are built to persuade you into doing certain things and we have surprisingly effective techniques for getting the results we want. A major aspect is that even when people notice and reject certain techniques this requires mental effort – over time you are worn down and less likely to make good decisions. At the moment we are fighting an up-hill battle against all the big players on the net – for what? Should it be like this? How do you want live to be? isn’t it worthwhile to strive for creating an environment where as many people as possible are able to thrive and succeed – after all, we all profit from other people making good decisions!

[1] https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-is-technology-do... I

[Severian]

Facebook can affect your life by being a rumor mill and bullying platform. Yes, it is easy to stop using Facebook, but the consequences of rumors can greatly affect a person offline.

[nicoburns]

Facebook had a huge effect on the most recent elections in both the US and the UK. To say that it has no power over your life is pretty naive.

[wu-ikkyu]

>Facebook has zero real power over your life

>ALL THEY DO IS HOST YOUR FRIENDS' PHOTOS.

These two obviously false statements completely undermine your otherwise valid point about personal responsibility.

[thinkloop]

Power is very different from influence. Facebook does a great job of encouraging people to choose to visit, but they have no power to force anyone to do so. The second comment is hyperbolic for sure, I used that device to try and swing the conversation closer to the other side where I think it needs to be.

[wu-ikkyu]

>Power is very different from influence

Influence is a function of power, it's in the very definition of the word:

1. the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality.

2. the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.

Does FB not have the ability to influence behavior?

Even if you choose not to visit FB (I don't), that doesn't mean FB has no influence over your life, especially when many/most of your friends and billions of others are plugged into it. Unless you live on Mars.